Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 469

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence

Open access
Booth, C M, Tannock, I F·2014·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Recent reports have highlighted the distinct roles and occasional tension between randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and population-based observational research ( Concato, 2012 ; Hershman and Wright, 2012 ; Goodwin et al, 2013 ). In this commentary, we will discuss the relative strengths and limitations of each form of research (see Table 1 ), and propose that well-designed RCTs and population-based observational studies can serve as complementary forms of research to ensure that the results of clinical trials translate into tangible benefits in the general population. Table 1 An overview of relative strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials and population-based observational studies Full size table

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.2013.725

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 469

Metadata

Authors
Booth, C. M., & Tannock, I. F.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2014-01-14
Volume
110
Issue
3
Pages
551-555
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2055557358
Cited by
469
References
54
FWCI
41.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2013.725
The paper
Booth, C. M., & Tannock, I. F. (2014). Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.725

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.